THIS IS AN EMAIL I SENT TO MEMBERS OF THE CAC RECENTLY AS WE EXPLORE WAYS TO HELP THOSE LIVING IN THE 65 DB CNEL.
appreciate both of your comments, although my advocacy for moving PADRZ a few degrees is self serving. I hope some of you read some of the publications that I was able to recover from the Port Authority. Nancy and U remember what it was like dealing with Don Nay who was the Port Director at the time, but frankly looking back at the publications, they seem to have made an effort. And yes, the environment was different. The City officials were behind the impacted residents, the FAA was far less involved in day to day issues, and ANCA had not been passed by Congress. There was no Part 161 that was thrown in our face any time we begin to push. If you push too hard you will lose your curfew, or those in line for insulation, will lose their eligibility. Yes, the FAA is powerful, but other cities have shown that they can be pushed back.
Back in the 1970 and on, the Airport had to apply for and receive a conditioned based variance to operate with incompatible land uses in the 65 dB CNEL. For whatever reason, the State Department of Transportation seemed to take this responsibly very seriously then compared to now. The State required the airport to demonstrate how they were going to decrease the size of the incompatible noise area. They were required to show a plan. I am not all of the way through the documents, but some of the elements of the plans were:
the curfew that was expanded from midnight to 11:30 pm and from 6 to 6:30 am, attempts to expand it further from 10 pm to am were shot down by the City who felt it would too negatively impact the economy; but interestingly they were willing to look at this trade. Why not now?
A maximum epndB was established for any aircraft operating at nighttime, which eliminated certain aircraft.
The requirement for only Stage 3 aircraft for post 10 pm departures was established
Requirements were set that eliminated Stage 2 aircraft over a period of X years, which was shorter than what was required by Congress.
Noise based landing fees were developed
Preferred flight paths were established, some which were originally very far north
The nighttime noise abatement track was established
The number of operations was limited according to a performance based decrease in the incompatible noise 65 dB CNEL; actually, I think the original criterion was based on the 70 dB CNEL
The FAA was requested to inform all carriers to be aware that Lindbergh Field is a noise sensitive airport
a thrust cut-off was established for take-off
I am in the NexGen impacted zone when the PADRZ was implemented that results in aircraft flying over MB in a more concentrated way, and it has been obvious. The number of noise complaints increased from just a few to thousands monthly, mostly thanks to Chris McCann’s button that made it much easier to file a complaint. But I think the amount of dispersion must have decreased some over OB when ZZOOO was implemented, but Yet, I have not heard much about this effect. The repetitive nature of a satellite navigation system is what is more unnerving to me. As an engineer I like consistency, but not in this case. It seems to me that the economy should be one of the variables to be traded off. Shifting noise is a huge criterion used by the Airport Authority to do nothing, but yet there is to be a huge shift in noise over the next six years, probably more now because of the coronavirus, but there will be many more people now in the 65 and many more people exposed to higher SENEL noise levels. Why is there no consideration of a trade of economy and quality of life? How many flights in and out of San Diego does it take for our businesses here to get their jobs done, with the exception of tourism (sorry if there is someone in distribution who depends on tourism). Tourism is important to San Diego, but much of this industry is low paying jobs, which I hope is not the future of San Diego. Food for thought.